“I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans,” Romney said at a joint news conference with Florida Senator Marco Rubio. “There was some concern that that would expire halfway through the year, and I support extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students as a result of student loans, obviously, in part because of the extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market.”

In publicly breaking with his own party, Romney is taking away a potential wedge issue for President Obama’s campaign — and giving hope to Democrats that they may find new momentum for the legislation [to extend the rates]. The deadline for the current, low interest rates to expire is July 1…

Republicans oppose the bill in part on the grounds that it isn’t paid for…

Asked whether House Republican leadership would get behind Courtney’s bill, given Romney’s comments, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner was non-committal.

GOP Rep. Jeff Landry told the Times last week vis-a-vis Romney, “We’re not a cheerleading squad. We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the train.” We’ll find out soon how true that is, but in the meantime read this Daily Caller piece from Friday explaining succinctly what a clever trap this was for Democrats to set. It’s not just that the extension isn’t paid for that bothers Republicans, it’s that lower rates keep the higher-education bubble inflated and keep the Democrats’ pals in academia flush with cash. But with the lower rates set to expire automatically in July, Romney was in a bind. If he sided with Obama, there’d be instant agita within the GOP that our “Massachusetts moderate” nominee is already going wobbly on spending. If he sided with House Republicans, Obama would spend the next week bashing him for hating kids and education and the middle class and all things good and true. In fact, The One actually organized a multistate trip and an appearance on Jimmy Fallon’s show expressly for that purpose.

Romney chose door number one because he thinks he has a shot at winning young voters, or at least at enough young voters to make Obama’s lift that much heavier in November. One out of every two new college grads is unemployed or underemployed; among 18-to-24 year olds, fewer than 50 percent say they’d like to see a second term for O. Romney’s not going to hand Obama an excuse to get an otherwise ambivalent core constituency excited, especially when the cost of extending the lower rate is “only” $5.6 billion this year. He can agree with him on this and then bash him on bigger spending items (I think/hope). Besides, Romney’s probably looking for a high-profile issue on which to distinguish himself from House Republicans. He’s already praised Ryan’s budget so he’s checked the “fiscal conservative” box; now he’s going to do something for centrists and independents by daring Boehner to undercut him. He likely figures that, with the primary set to unofficially end tomorrow night in Pennsylvania and the general election to start in earnest, the House GOP will be reluctant to kneecap him on a relatively small-ticket item. And if they do, that’s fine: Centrists will feel reassured that he won’t necessarily be led by the right and conservatives will turn out to vote for him against O in November anyway.

Exit question one: Romney will definitely man up and have that “serious conversation” with America about entitlement reform when the time comes, right? Exit question two: Does this mean, contra David Plouffe, that he really isn’t the, er, most conservative nominee since Goldwater?

Show me the constitutional authority for the federal government to either directly offer, or to secure, student loans. So the answer to this is simple. There should be no federal students loans, period. And, know what? Federal student loans are the sole reason college tuition is the ridiculous price it is today. Get the government out of the busienss of financial aid for college, and folks won’t need financial aid for college.

I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about the concept that when the price of a good or service is in no way tied to the customer’s ability to pay, costs rise exponentially. It’s the same thing that’s kept health care costs ridiculously high.

Romney’s not going to hand Obama an excuse to get an otherwise ambivalent core constituency excited, especially when the cost of extending the lower rate is “only” $5.6 billion this year.

It’s Mittens being pragmatic. Look, I disagree with him on this position, but let’s be frank. Is it worth potentially alienating a lot of young voters out there who according to most polls are disillusioned with Obama when the matter is over “only” $5.6 billion? It’s like the debt ceiling debate. You have to pick your battles heading into this election. Don’t sacrifice electoral success in favor of ideological purity, especially with the Presidency and Senate on the line.

I’ve already proven, a number of times on this board, that rising tuition costs can be traced to gradual public disinvestment from college budgets. That, more than anything, is what encouraged the loosening of credit rates for student loans.

“There was some concern that that would expire halfway through the year, and I support extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students as a result of student loans, obviously, in part because of the extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market.”

He stressed the poor job market with his remarks, which I think is the key to this.

My favorite aspect of this whole “spiraling cost of higher education” meme is that it focuses entirely on the increase in student loan interest rates but ignores the elephant in the room. Higher education costs have risen at triple the rate of inflation since 1986 but of course you aren’t going to hear the White House or the MSM take any of their fellow libtards in academia to task over sticking it to the 99% via the cost of tuition.

Republicans oppose the bill in part on the grounds that it isn’t paid for…

What a crock of crap.

Both parties use that piss poor excuse as a cudgel against legislation they don’t like, when neither party really gives a flying rat’s butt about what is and isn’t paid for. If they actually cared about crap being paid for, we wouldn’t be nearing $16 trillion in debt while we simultaneously grow the size of government every stinking year.

I would love it if they honestly believed in the idea that “we can’t do it because it isn’t paid for”, but the budgets out of both parties repeatedly and loudly say they don’t really give a crap at all.

They can’t take the “not paid for” schtick and shove it up their collective backsides until they can manage to prove that they actually believe it and will apply it to ALL legislation… and more importantly, to the budget as a whole.

Uh, because this undercuts Obama’s talking points? Hard to paint Mittens as heartless and uncaring of young Americans when they hold the SAME DAMN POSITION on student loans!

Romney can’t agree with fiscal conservatives on every single issue heading into this election. Let him focus on the big stuff like repealing Obamacare, passing the Ryan budget, reforming entitlements, and reducing the size of government.

Ha! Please let’s not have anyone acting shocked or surprised over this. Williard Romney is a two-faced, shameless liar. Any promise to Conservatives should be seen as inoperable as it leaves his mouth. The “Etch-a-sketch” comment taken together with the “Fox True Believer” remark should be enough for anyone to figure out what he and his people are all about.

If Conservatives are lukewarm about him now, wait until Romney goes into full Centrist Mode this Summer and Fall. He’s already begun with his strategy of marginalizing the TEA Party.

And if you haven’t figured out that Rubio’s “Republican Dream Act” was cooked up by the Romney camp and given to Rubio to float before the public, then you haven’t been paying attention.

I’ve already proven, a number of times on this board, that rising tuition costs can be traced to gradual public disinvestment from college budgets. That, more than anything, is what encouraged the loosening of credit rates for student loans.

the main reason tuition continues to rise is a dramatic change that took place regarding the Federal Stafford Loan more than a decade ago. When Uncle Sam opened the floodgates to government-backed student loans without parent income restrictions in 1992, colleges welcomed the news with open arms. The sudden injection of millions of additional aid dollars only furthered tuition increases. Add to that the government’s continued promotion of the Stafford Loan as a low-cost program, and you have the formula for hyperinflationary costs.

When the government made it exceptionally easy for students to borrow massive amounts of money, the colleges followed the lead by increasing their tuition rates. This combination led to record-level borrowing.

Uh, because this undercuts Obama’s talking points? Hard to paint Mittens as heartless and uncaring of young Americans when they hold the SAME DAMN POSITION on student loans!

Romney can’t agree with fiscal conservatives on every single issue heading into this election. Let him focus on the big stuff like repealing Obamacare, passing the Ryan budget, reforming entitlements, and reducing the size of government.

EXACTLY what one expects from a RINO.
The national debt just isn’t high enough – let’s increase it some more with subsidized, below market-rate loans!
And let’s also pander to the Gimme, Gimme, Gimme crowd while we’re at it!

It’s Mittens being pragmatic. Look, I disagree with him on this position, but let’s be frank. Is it worth potentially alienating a lot of young voters out there who according to most polls are disillusioned with Obama when the matter is over “only” $5.6 billion? It’s like the debt ceiling debate. You have to pick your battles heading into this election. Don’t sacrifice electoral success in favor of ideological purity, especially with the Presidency and Senate on the line.

EXACTLY what one expects from a RINO.
The national debt just isn’t high enough – let’s increase it some more with subsidized, below market-rate loans!
And let’s also pander to the Gimme, Gimme, Gimme crowd while we’re at it!

TeaPartyNation on April 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Hey, it’s only 5.6 billion. I’m sure we can find that in the sofa cushions.

Let him focus on the big stuff like repealing Obamacare, passing the Ryan budget, reforming entitlements, and reducing the size of government.

Doughboy on April 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Okay, which do you want him to do… pass the Ryan budget or reduce the size of government? Because the Ryan budget most certainly does not reduce the size of government. In fact, to call the Ryan budget “conservative” is laughable on its face. The Obama budget vs. the Ryan budget is Statist vs. Statist Lite.

Gov. Romney just made it harder for obama to buy the youth vote. And I must add, Gov. Romney does not say, “Pahk-i-stan”. I listened to the speech. Every time I hear someone pronounce it obama’s way, I cringe.

Ultimately, government loans to students need to go away, but there has to be a transition period so the kids who are in school can finish – maybe a 3-5 year phase out, at the same time making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.

Does this really come as a surprise to anyone? His followers have told us repeatedly that policy does not matter and that the only thing which matters is removing Obama. If Romney were to come out tomorrow and announce he was going to raise taxes, implement cap and trade, and work on a new trillion dollar stimulus bill, his supporters would not budge an inch because he’s still “better than Obama.” Romney can and will run to the left (or further to the left) because he’s been given carte blanche by his own supporters to do so.

Exit question one: Romney will definitely man up and have that “serious conversation” with America about entitlement reform when the time comes, right?

I believe in fairies!

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Make a virtue out of necessity.

You have to pick your battles carefully, and this really isn’t a hill to die on. The best choice he could have made.

Ultimately, government loans to students need to go away, but there has to be a transition period so the kids who are in school can finish – maybe a 3-5 year phase out, at the same time making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.

I would very much like to see Congress get the federal Government completely out of the college loan business and return it to the marketplace where it belongs.

There’s not a single reason why ANY tax money should be used to support student loans. If you want to go to college, get a job early on and start saving up for it. Let the colleges do their own loans or, gasp, get a loan from a bank.

I’m not sure I care about this. The interest isn’t paid to gov’t – the loans are still made by private banks. It is just that the gov’t guarantees repayment of the loans, which allows the loans to be given out at a lower interest rate.

While I don’t think the gov’t should be as heavily involved in the business of financing higher education (not every kid needs to go to college, third-party payer problems raise the cost of education exponentially, etc), but as far as those people already with loans, it doesn’t bother me to extend the lower interest rate for a period.

This is a bit of theater and nothing more. It should not effect the debt or deficit as it is not a transaction between the student and gov’t, it is between the student and a bank, with the gov’t standing as surety.

If Romney were to come out tomorrow and announce he was going to raise taxes, implement cap and trade, and work on a new trillion dollar stimulus bill, his supporters would not budge an inch because he’s still “better than Obama.” Doomberg on April 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Okay, which do you want him to do… pass the Ryan budget or reduce the size of government? Because the Ryan budget most certainly does not reduce the size of government. In fact, to call the Ryan budget “conservative” is laughable on its face. The Obama budget vs. the Ryan budget is Statist vs. Statist Lite.

Shump on April 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Pass the Ryan budget(or any budget for that matter!) first. Then start to cut, consolidate, and eliminate departments of government as Romney’s pledged to do. If he fails to do this, then we’ll primary his ass in 2016. But if we freak out over $5.6 billion with a damn $1.3 trillion annual deficit hanging over our heads, we’re gonna hand reelection to Obama. Big picture, people.

But this has nothing to do with spending gov’t money (except to the extent a student defaults altogether and the gov’t has to pay). In these loans, the gov’t does not lend the money, they merely guaranty to a bank that the money will be repaid. Thus, if a student pays a higher interest rate, that money does not go to the gov’t, but to the bank. The gov’t only pays when the student defaults. So a lower interest rate is not “the gov’t spending money”.

This is what happens when you pick a RINO. I guess I will vote for him if I’m not too busy on election day. However, I won’t be asking my friends and family to vote for him, I won’t be defending him for the stupid things he says like this, and I certainly won’t give a dime to his RINO campaign.

This is what happens when you pick a RINO. I guess I will vote for him if I’m not too busy on election day. However, I won’t be asking my friends and family to vote for him, I won’t be defending him for the stupid things he says like this, and I certainly won’t give a dime to his RINO campaign.

Dollayo on April 23, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Amen. The only thing I disagree with you on is that I am already booked for November the forth so I unfortunately won’t be able to vote.

And I’m not a huge Romney guy. I am begrudgingly planning on voting for him, that is it. However, if he decides to offer up an amnesty (something he has given indications of doing) to try and win the Hispanic vote, I won’t bother voting in the presidential election.

but, this is not a matter of the gov’t spending money. It is not adding to the deficit or debt as far as I can see to extend the low interest rate. there may be other provisions in the bill they are talking about that do that, but the issue with gov’t guaranteed college loans doesn’t do that.

These were not going to expire on your watch, Mitt. Why take a position at all?

Dumb dumb dumb.

TexasDan on April 23, 2012 at 5:08 PM

This is what I was thinking. Unless someone specifically asked him about this, why did he feel compelled to offer an opinion at all? Does he really think the youth vote is going to be all that strong in November?

This is what happens when you pick a RINO.
Dollayo on April 23, 2012 at 5:10 PM

.
Really? You think he should say the opposite and help Obama energize the students?
Romney said “I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans,”
It doesn’t mean anything as Romney is not yet an elected official. It’s no different that you as a private citizen saying, “I support LincolntheHun’s promotion to Shogun.”